Posted on 01/27/2012 5:17:13 AM PST by jjotto
Lottery Calls Series Of Events 'Strangest Situation' In 26-Year History
DES MOINES, Iowa -- A New York lawyer, acting as the trustee for what is called the Hexham Investment Trust, has indicated he will not pursue a claim for a $14 million lottery jackpot.
Just after 6 p.m. Thursday, lawyers in Des Moines representing attorney Crawford Shaw said he is withdrawing his claim for the "Hot Lotto" ticket that was submitted to Iowa Lottery officials just hours before a Dec. 29, 2011 deadline. The ticket had been purchased at a Des Moines convenience store a year earlier.
Lottery officials said there were conditions that had to be met before they would release the winning the jackpot, including the identity of the purchaser and whether the ticket was legally purchased, presented and possessed.
The statement by the Davis Brown law firm said, "The purchaser has chosen to remain anonymous. The identity of the purchaser has not been disclosed to Shaw."
Shaw told a reporter for the Reuters news service he was giving up the claim because "I'm not going to argue with the lottery."
The statement from the Des Moines lawyers concluded Shaw "has agreed to take no further action." But Lottery officials say the Iowa Attorney General and the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) will continue to investigate the situation to see if any laws were broken.
A lottery statement Thursday night called the series of events "the strangest situation that we can recall in the 26-year history of our lottery."
"We couldn't verify the winner. That's the bottom line. We could verify the winner and they could claim it," said Iowa Lottery CEO Terry Rich. "If, in fact, Mr. Shaw, as a trustee, could provide the information, we were ready to write the check tomorrow at 3 p.m."
Lottery officials said the $10.7 million will be returned to the multistate lottery commission, and Iowa will get roughly $1.3 million back.
listen to this video:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/mystery-lottery-winner-lose-jackpot-friday-explains/story?id=15439568
“Neubeauer noted that the man who signed the ticket, Crawford Shaw, is involved in criminal and bankruptcy proceedings in New York and Delaware, a fact which she said could turn out to be irrelevant, but needs to be looked into. “
http://abcnews.go.com/US/mystery-lottery-winner-lose-jackpot-friday-explains/story?id=15439568
Hmmm..what criminal proceedings??
A small clarification:
The statement by the Davis Brown law firm said, "The purchaser has chosen to remain anonymous. The identity of the purchaser has not been disclosed to Shaw."
Shaw didn't actually say this. He sent the ticket to a Des Moines law firm with instructions for them to claim the prize on behalf of the trust. Davis Brown is the local law firm.
But, this is one of the things that I find curious: that the trustee doesn't know who the beneficiary is. I'm not quite sure how one would do this: set up a trust with one trustee, and then have the first trustee appoint a second trustee -- without telling him who the beneficiary is?
I'm wondering if there's a typo in the statement. Maybe the last sentence was supposed to be: The identity of the purchaser has not been disclosed by Shaw?
No. I didn't expect someone to take my flippant statement seriously. However, avoiding requests for financial assistance (from friends, relatives, charities, etc.) would be a reason that I would remain anonymous if I won the lottery. But I wouldn't walk away from that much money to remain anonymous.
I believe the criminal proceedings involve ‘illegally’ obtaining stocks and then fraudulently inflating their value. Probably some FReeper can explain what the heck that might mean!
I think it was indeed a misstatement or misquote. The article that you posted from ABC news says:
Lottery officials asked the attorneys and Shaw to explain how the ticket had ended up in his possession in New York. Shaw declined to provide the details, but said he did not know who purchased the ticket and that he could not identify his client, who had come to possess the ticket. He said he merely represented his client and the trust.
Note that he said that he could not identify his client. He didn't say that he didn't know the client. This is consistent with a trust: the trustee can't identify the beneficiary without permission. However, the information can be obtained with a court order.
Yeah, I wonder about that. He must really be afraid of something.
The winner may be hiding from the mafia, not the from legal judgments or tax liens.
I speculated earlier that he might be in the witness protection program. He might also be hiding from a criminal past, like Whitey Bulger did for 16 years.
Shaw, BTW, would not reveal any details about the trust.
Legally, and ethically (according to bar rules), I don't think he can without a court order.
Lottery: A voluntary tax on the stupid.
They are funneling money to Belize.
Not illegal.
Just a red flag.
You can have a chain of multiple trusts.
If I won the lottery I would use at least two trusts.
Shaw misspelled the name of the trust on the lottery ticket.
So therefore, technically, it wasn’t signed for by the right owner.
Let’s say someone is laundering money. They have trust accounts in Russia, Belize, Switzerland and all with trusts.
Mobster Kingpin extorts the ticket. Innocent ticket holder and his family will be killed if he tells.
Mobster Kingpin uses one or more trusts to claim the ticket.
Shaw may not even know Mobster Kingpin is behind it.
You can have one trust to claim a ticket and then it can be handed over to another trust.
Given that one of Shaw’s connections set up a bank in Russia it would not surprise me if there aren’t some Russians involved somewhere with this.
I don’t know that we will ever know the story.
Not if you live in Iowa. :-)
They will think you are doing something illegal.
And yes, I'd do the a similar thing: one trust, which only lasts long enough to transfer the funds into a family limited partnership.
Shaw has been involved with more than one penny stock scheme but I haven’t seen any criminal proceedings against him, yet.
When I first read his supposed biography I thought perhaps he might have made it up to attach himself to a dead man.
Until I found that Jim Reed’s son- or someone with his name- was on the Board of Directors of one of his penny stocks.
His son supposedly created the first western bank Swiss/US/Russia in St Petersburg. You don’t do that without some heavy duty contacts
Someone with the same name is now or was involved with Pentagoet Company
Jim Reed was a PT Boat officer and can be seen in pictures with JFK at the compound and in the Solomon Islands
Shaw, 76, sent a fax to the law firm Thursday saying he doesn’t know the identity of the purchaser. The firm relayed the information to lottery officials.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57367365/lawyer-withdraws-$7.5-million-dollar-lottery-claim/
“Shaw said Wednesday through the Des Moines-based Davis Brown Law Firm that if the jackpot were paid, the money would be donated to charity. He declined to comment further Thursday.”
There’s another red flag: The state lottery is asserting, I believe rightfully so, that their process, based in law, requires beneficiaries of trusts to be named and verified. I believe, for purposes of integrity of the prize process to be maintained, this should be the process. I’m looking into finding a specific citation of rule and/or law to make that clear, especially to one particular “internet/arm-char expert” that’s been quite vociferous in this thread with passing their opinion as fact, in a rather condescending, thought-ending cliche manner.
Iowa Administrative Code, 705-1.14(3)By submitting a claim, the player also agrees that the prizewinner’s name may be used for publicity purposes by the lottery.
Talk-radio program I’m listening to right now had a lottery official on that also said that state law requires disclosure of trust beneficiaries when a trust is claiming a lottery prize.
It appears that the Trust in this case was unwilling to comply, and therefore dropped their claim.
LOL. I showed you the facts to back my statement, directly from the Iowa Lottery. And, I offered you the opportunity to show me something that contradicted it.
I'm glad to see that you accepted the challenge. It would be a lot more interesting than passing off your opinion as fact. I'll even offer you a hint: there are some states that DO require it, by law. Reportedly, Ohio even prohibits the use of a trust altogether, although I haven't verified that.
Don't misunderstand: I think there's a lot of weird things about this case that warrant closer scrutiny. I just don't believe that the law empowers the Iowa Lottery to do anything more than pay the bearer of a valid ticket.
If I were an investigator in the IRS or the equivalent Iowa state agency, I would be examining the trust with a fine-tooth comb, using the powers granted to them by their respective laws. But, that's not the Iowa Lottery's job.
This is standard language in every state. My state has it, too. But, let's actually cite it:
11.1(3) By submitting a claim, the player also agrees that the prizewinner’s name may be used for publicity purposes by the lottery.
Note the terminology: prizewinner's name. Let's go back to a previous section:
11.1(1) A prize claim shall be entered in the name of a single individual or organization.
If an organization (which is subsequently defined as a "legal entity", like a trust) is the name. Therefore, for advertising purposes, the trust is the prize winner.
Talk-radio program I’m listening to right now had a lottery official on that also said that state law requires disclosure of trust beneficiaries when a trust is claiming a lottery prize.
Did he cite the law, or did he just claim it like you did -- and then realized that the Lottery Code didn't say that?
I don't mean to disparage the official, but I've caught officials telling half-truth's and sometimes outright untruth's to media. I got an apology and a correction from a university police chief after I pointed out his incorrect interpretation on the use of deadly force in self-defense.
There is a possibility, which maybe you can find: some states require it in order to confirm that the beneficiaries don't owe back taxes, student loans, or child support. But, I didn't find anything like that in the Iowa Lottery Code.
To comply with state law, the names and addresses of beneficiaries of trusts must be collected to ensure compliance with state law and administrative rules to ensure that persons receiving winnings are not among those who are prohibited by state law from participating in the lottery, and persons subject to liens, judgements, and other garnishments comply with said liens, judgements, and garnishments.
The code section pertaining to exemptions from Open Records specifically states that winners names and addresses may not be withheld.
All is in the Iowa Code, section 99G.
This “Trust” forfeited their claim. All your arguments are MOOT.
You really should provide a cite to the actual text. Here's one to the entire section:
And guess what? I can't find your statement above. I can find bits and pieces of it that you seem to think they are required to collect the names of beneficiaries, but I don't see anything that actually requires them to do it.
The code section pertaining to exemptions from Open Records specifically states that winners names and addresses may not be withheld.
Not a problem in this case, as the Trust is a legal entity, with both a name and an address.
This “Trust” forfeited their claim. All your arguments are MOOT.
The trustee decided to not pursue the claim, apparently because the beneficiary did not want to risk being identified. I'm curious about why, especially for that amount of money.
However, that doesn't make my arguments moot. If the beneficiary had retained a competent lawyer, the attorney would have done exactly what I've done: demand that the Iowa Lottery cite the law that requires them to identify the beneficiary of the trust.
Instead, he simply said: "I'm not going to argue with the lottery." Unless he is following explicit instructions from the beneficiary, that's a major breach of his fiduciary duty as trustee.
It’s quite obvious to me, reading the statutes as a whole, that the Lottery is within their duties and obligations to at the very least determine the names and addresses of any trust beneficiary to comply with their duties under the statutes with regard to prohibited persons playing, and obligations regarding garnishments, liens and judgements. You are not going to convince me otherwise.
Beyond that, You raise a whole lot of “”IF”.... You can wish in one hand, and crap in the other - and in reality, you know what you’ve got.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.